Live data from Hacker News

SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]

sec.gov

71–80 of 357 posts

Re: SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]

#71
post #26

So if you have a rare-earth metal commodity ETF that can be dug from the ground in conflict areas and have exchange markets in these wild areas, would the SEC deny that commodity ETF then because they wouldn't have surveillance-sharing agreements with those markets?

Why would the exchanges be in the areas where the metal is mined? The London Metal Exchange seems to do pretty well despite the scandalous lack of zinc mines or steel mills inside the M25.

Re: SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]

#72

Bitcoin just went from a high of 1327.1926 to 995.9575 in the blink of an eye. Wow. From the ruling.... > First, the exchange must have surveillance-sharing agreements with significant markets for trading the underlying commodity or derivatives on that commodity. And second, those markets must be regulated. > Based on the record before it, the Commission believes that the significant markets for bitcoin are unregulat…

Why is the third point a reservation? Is the SEC afraid that somebody could manipulate the share price due to the lack of liquidity?

Re: SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]

#73

This is the same committee that approved VXX and UVXX ,which have lost 99.999% of their value There is an OTC fund that holds Bitcoin...but at a large premium to NAV

Are you seriously comparing the type of fund that VXX and UVXX are to a hypothetical Bitcoin ETF?

Re: SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]

#75

Having sold all of my bitcoin at ~800 at a small loss (a significant portion coming from commission fee( ~$150+ to convert low four digit USD amount of bitcoins to fiat.) I am paying attention to the bitcoin prices closely. As USD gains more interest it's going to put downward pressure on gold and bitcoin. There's no way this is going to gain mass adoption by being this expensive. More importantly, this signals stron…

> There's no way this is going to gain mass adoption by being this expensive.

I struggle to understand what you mean. What sort of anchor are you using for how much the exchange rate should be for adoption? Cost of electricity, cost of mining equipment, cost of running a node? Satoshis are so abstract that "this expensive" seems irrelevant to everything except for historical rates.

Conventional wisdom on BTC is that one element that would improve adoption would be lower volatility and that in order to get that, the market cap would need to be much, much higher. Given the fixed inflation rate this usually suggests that the exchange rate has to be correspondingly higher.

Re: SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]

#76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't look at bitcoin as a currency I look at it as a fungible reserve like Gold or a Rolex. Both of those things usually appreciate in value, especially in uncertain times; I'll be using this price decrease to buy more I think.

"bitcoin" itself is unregulated in the same way gold itself is unregulated.

There are regulated markets for gold.

Re: SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]

#77

Bitcoin just went from a high of 1327.1926 to 995.9575 in the blink of an eye. Wow. From the ruling.... > First, the exchange must have surveillance-sharing agreements with significant markets for trading the underlying commodity or derivatives on that commodity. And second, those markets must be regulated. > Based on the record before it, the Commission believes that the significant markets for bitcoin are unregulat…

It's not reasonable in the sense that the SEC should respond to the level of trader interest in BTC with something other than "don't trade it".

The SEC has a three pronged mission:

- Protect investors - Maintain fair, orderly, and efficiently markets - Facilitate capital formation

With this decision they missed on all three. No investor was protected. The BTC market today was not fair, orderly, or efficient. There was excessive capital destruction.

Re: SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]

#78
post #69
post #21

Coinbase is down.

Coinbase/GDAX is incredibly unreliable during "big news" moments like this. Time and time again this happens, and they haven't quite figured out their scaling issue yet.

It's especially aggravating as a trader, because these big price swings are exactly the time you want to get some trades in.

Re: SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]

#79

Coin Center executive director Jerry Brito: > The Winklevoss ETF proposal was rejected because the SEC found that the significant markets for Bitcoin tend to be unregulated overseas markets that are potentially subject to price manipulation. But this creates a chicken and egg problem. How do we develop well-capitalized and regulated markets in the U.S. and Europe if financial innovators aren’t allowed to bring produc…

The SEC's job (relevant to the issue at hand) is not to make it easy to drive demand in the US on the hopes that that might create conditions for mature markets in $COMMODITY, it is to assure that exchanges listing derivatives of $COMMODITY have adequate rules in place to protect against manipulation, including manipulation of the derivative through manipulation of the underlying commodity.

If the key driver for domestic demand for the commodity is readable derivatives such that one needs to create such in order to drive demand, then, well, too bad.

If there is sufficient inherent utility in the underlying commodity, you won't need to violate normal exchange criteria to create derivative markets to stimulate demand for the commodity, the commodity will drive itself, and create the conditions where it won't be unduly onerous to create derivatives markets that meet the normal criteria.

Re: SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]

#80

Bitcoin just went from a high of 1327.1926 to 995.9575 in the blink of an eye. Wow. From the ruling.... > First, the exchange must have surveillance-sharing agreements with significant markets for trading the underlying commodity or derivatives on that commodity. And second, those markets must be regulated. > Based on the record before it, the Commission believes that the significant markets for bitcoin are unregulat…

>Bitcoin just went from a high of 1327.1926 to 995.9575 in the blink of an eye.

That is a loss of 25% of its value. This announcement does nothing to hurt the utility of Bitcoin or its application as a medium of exchange. That drop certainly seems like a speculative investment bubble popping.

Post reply on HN